SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?
-
I have been WFH for a long time and feel passionately that if I’m doing work, the it’s on something work provided. The only time I would consider using my own hardware would be if the work hardware fails and I am waiting for the hardware to be fixed.
-
I am reacting to the video and discussions on this page. My example provides an example scenario which could happen. I own a deceive, it is my device, and I decide to give my device to somebody else. I no longer have it. Therefore, I have no device to work on. This is one reason why it is entirely expected by myself and many others that work must provide devices. You expect me to be able to work, then provide the tools to do so.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
Likewise, I spend thousands on a beast of a machine for my personal use. No way am I putting wear and tear on that for business reasons. It is my device. Go pound sand, get a device for me to use to get company work done, or go find a chump who will use their own like a damn fool. Of course I can afford top end and buy a really high spec machine, but thats for my use.
Wear and tear? What? What wear and tear are you thinking of? That's not how computers work.
Using anything causes wear a tear. To what degree is irrelevant. Simply being on and ready to use for work is wear and tear. The laptop trackpad and keyboard, wear and tear. Components have a lifespan and none of that lifespan should go to the employer on a device I own.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
but if its for work, its must be procured by work.
Just to earn less money? What's your goal in that statement? Why lower your value only for the sake of doing so?
Are their cases where it makes sense, sure. But are there cases where it makes little sense? Yes, many.
And I ask again... if you feel that way about computers, why not Internet access, power, or even the house you are in? Where do you draw the line and why?
It feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face. It feels like you see your employer as the enemy and you want to hurt them. While that might be the case, instead of taking an antagonistic approach, look for an employer you like and who likes you. Your employment should be a positive thing for both parties, both working together, not against each other.
Let’s be real here. The argument you make is BS. If a business doesn’t have to buy a laptop, do you really think that money is going to your salary? Talk about head in the sand. That will go straight to investors or somewhere else. The decision isn’t ‘buy Scott a laptop or pay him 2k more’. You’ll never see that 2k.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@Mario-Jakovina said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
I do not see that anyone needs to make "general rule" and select people based on what they prefer to use.
So you agree with my points. My point was people should HAVE it, not hiring based on which they preferred.
I agree with some of your points (i.e. definitely person who wants to work in IT should already have personal PC/laptop...)
But I think there is no need to "draw a line" and make general rule, whether the company will provide business laptop to someone or not, pay for internet...
(I was answering to your question "Where do you draw the line") -
@Mario-Jakovina said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
But I think there is no need to "draw a line" and make general rule, whether the company will provide business laptop to someone or not, pay for internet...
(I was answering to your question "Where do you draw the line")I see what you are saying. That can make sense. And I suppose that that is where we are at. We often provide nothing, but we can even provide housing. It's all over the map depending on the situation. But I think that that was my point that people were acting like the company had to provide certain things and the logic behind that would naturally include all those other things so what makes the logic include the one and not the others. Because their logic was not that it was situational, but that companies need to always do it because there should be a hard line, but where is that hard line.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
but if its for work, its must be procured by work.
Just to earn less money? What's your goal in that statement? Why lower your value only for the sake of doing so?
Are their cases where it makes sense, sure. But are there cases where it makes little sense? Yes, many.
And I ask again... if you feel that way about computers, why not Internet access, power, or even the house you are in? Where do you draw the line and why?
It feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face. It feels like you see your employer as the enemy and you want to hurt them. While that might be the case, instead of taking an antagonistic approach, look for an employer you like and who likes you. Your employment should be a positive thing for both parties, both working together, not against each other.
Let’s be real here. The argument you make is BS. If a business doesn’t have to buy a laptop, do you really think that money is going to your salary? Talk about head in the sand. That will go straight to investors or somewhere else. The decision isn’t ‘buy Scott a laptop or pay him 2k more’. You’ll never see that 2k.
That's not really how it works. Your compensation is a total package. If you think your benefits are ignored in your compensation package you aren't thinking like a business. They never ignore that. They know who has extra costs and who does not. It's very "the man" thinking to imagine anything you do will go back to investors, but that makes no logical sense in the case where you are demanding more or less compensation. It changes your leverage, bottom line. You might as well say that about anything you negotiate with and you'd hear how weird it sounds. There is a reason your salary goes up or down when you combine it with vacations, health benefits, etc.
My argument is based off of the real world. As someone whose been on both sides of the fence, I know that when I cost the company more, I earn less. Might not be right that second, but I'm less valuable and that affects my ability to get a raise or argue for additional compensation. If you think that companies ignore employee cost and just throw money away because they can't track how much an employee costs them, you are missing how business works.
If your business is that clueless, you can safely assume they won't have the ability to hire anyone for long.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
Using anything causes wear a tear. To what degree is irrelevant. Simply being on and ready to use for work is wear and tear.
Actually lots of arguments say it's less than turning it on or off. This is a pointless argument. It's a nominal wear and tear that cannot be measured. It costs you nothing. If you argue with this, it means you are arguing for its own sake - out of a spite for your employer or a hatred of your job. This isn't about costing you anything, not a single penny, it's about making sure your employer doesn't get a benefit that costs you nothing just because you are adversarial. And that's exactly the kind of mindset any employer would want to weed out.
It's not "wrong" to feel that way, but it's a really, really strong indicator of someone you don't want in your working environment. An active animosity and desire to avoid good results for everyone. Willing to earn less, willing to work in a less good environment, just to hurt the employer. It's zero negative to you, it's just an active attempt to hurt the investors or if its a government job, the tax payers.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
The laptop trackpad and keyboard, wear and tear. Components have a lifespan and none of that lifespan should go to the employer on a device I own.
They all have lifespans greater than their usable lives. If you want to talk about BS arguments, this is the very definition.
You might as well argue that your employer needs to provide the windows that the sunlight is coming through because there is wear and tear from the sunlight.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
I have been WFH for a long time and feel passionately that if I’m doing work, the it’s on something work provided. The only time I would consider using my own hardware would be if the work hardware fails and I am waiting for the hardware to be fixed.
Sure, I get that. But your logic as to why... because it costs you nothing but they should never benefit from anything you have no matter how little that would cost you, is the issue.
And if work stuff fails and you'd use your own stuff temporarily... what's the change in logic there? I love the thought, but I don't understand why that would provide an exception to your "no way will they benefit from something I have" mentality. What makes it unacceptable normally, but acceptable then? Feels like a flaw in the logic. If the employer must supply everything no matter what, then it's no matter what. If it should be "what makes logical sense and benefits both parties most" then it would be the other. This feels like an untenable middle ground where the hard line doesn't make sense and the common good doesn't make sense.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
I am reacting to the video and discussions on this page. My example provides an example scenario which could happen. I own a deceive, it is my device, and I decide to give my device to somebody else. I no longer have it. Therefore, I have no device to work on. This is one reason why it is entirely expected by myself and many others that work must provide devices. You expect me to be able to work, then provide the tools to do so.
This is a fine example, but isn't really relevant in your "no wear and tear hard line" position. If the point is you want to buy and sell, change or share, that's a great position and I think a great discussion... does using your own machine lock you into always using your own machine? And the answer is... well it depends, I'm sure.
But if you are going to take the hard line of "I'll never allow the employer to benefit" then this really is pointless as the fact that you have or don't have the equipment doesn't matter because even if you have it and there's no reason not to use it for work, you won't do so.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
You expect me to be able to work, then provide the tools to do so.
So again I'll keep asking the same question... where do you draw this "hard line"? You are making the computer a hard line, but why not the INternet, the chair, the desk, the house? All of them are things you'd expect functional IT people to own regardless of anything else (work provided equipment or not.) When you start drawing hard lines (work must provide the equipment) then I have to ask... which equipment do you include and which do you not include because to me and others, there's no definition here. All of it is stuff you would be expected to already have, all things people normally use freely for work, all things that have nominal wear and tear added by using during work, all things you need if looking for your next job, but one of them, but only one, is singled out as "work HAS to provide it." Why that one, and what logic makes that one so adamant and the others ignored?
What I'm looking for is a consistency to the reason. If there is going to be a general rule (anything I use for work, work must provide) then that rule should apply. But it seems you have a hard and fast rule that almost never applies.
-
Keep in mind the ENTIRE concept of "work from home" is that instead of making you go into an office, sit in a company supplied space, use company supplied equipment, and you have to provide the commute, the ability to travel, your extra time to get there that you exchange the use of your house and electric and internet (and often computer or whatever) to gain huge amounts of benefits while your employer benefits from having to provide less. Everyone wins because you act as a team, working towards a common good and both sides should benefit.
If you don't feel that the employer should benefit from that, and are willing to give up those benefits to spite them, then the employer can achieve the same goals more cheaply in an office building in most cases. If I have to pay for electric, Internet, computers, heating, cooling, desks, chairs, etc. I can do that much more effectively where there is security, monitoring, shared spaces, etc.
Working from home is a really obvious benefit that employers can provide. Allowing the "costs you nothing" use of your home resources is a trivial exchange for getting all those benefits for yourself.
-
Here's two important takeaways I think people should have...
- If you represent an employer, you should never want to have employees that are adversarial with you. You want to be a good employer that encourages employees to like working there and seek the common good. Good employers should want to benefit employees, and employees should want the business to do well. It's mutually beneficial. If it isn't, rethink things. If you are doing things as an employer to negatively impact your employees beyond what is necessary (like making them work, lol) why? That's just shitty. If your employees hurt work just to hurt the business, why are you paying them? There's always someone who will appreciate the job. Be a team, or move on.
- As an employee, you shouldn't want to work in an environment where you don't desire the success of the whole. Employment is a huge portion of our lives and being happy with your work, with your career, are keys to being a happy person. If you feel hostility towards your job or your career, move on. There are other employers out there. If we were more aggressive about leaving bad ones, bad ones would be less common. One of the reasons that bad employers thrive is because people just put up with it. And the more good employees put up with bad employers, the fewer good employers are out there.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
Here's two important takeaways I think people should have...
- If you represent an employer, you should never want to have employees that are adversarial with you. You want to be a good employer that encourages employees to like working there and seek the common good. Good employers should want to benefit employees, and employees should want the business to do well. It's mutually beneficial. If it isn't, rethink things. If you are doing things as an employer to negatively impact your employees beyond what is necessary (like making them work, lol) why? That's just shitty. If your employees hurt work just to hurt the business, why are you paying them? There's always someone who will appreciate the job. Be a team, or move on.
- As an employee, you shouldn't want to work in an environment where you don't desire the success of the whole. Employment is a huge portion of our lives and being happy with your work, with your career, are keys to being a happy person. If you feel hostility towards your job or your career, move on. There are other employers out there. If we were more aggressive about leaving bad ones, bad ones would be less common. One of the reasons that bad employers thrive is because people just put up with it. And the more good employees put up with bad employers, the fewer good employers are out there.
While you make good points there is an obvious advantage for the company supplying IT and office equipment for the employee and that is taxation.
Most countries have sales tax and payroll tax so when an employee (not a company) buys something for his own money, that money has been heavily taxed already.
So in a win-win scenario for the maximum benefit of everyone, an employee should never buy anything for his own money that a company can buy.
-
@Pete-S said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
Most countries have sales tax and payroll tax so when an employee (not a company) buys something for his own money, that money has been heavily taxed already.
So in a win-win scenario for the maximum benefit of everyone, an employee should never buy anything for his own money that a company can buy.In countries with that tax situation, and a relationship that allows for it, I agree wholeheartedly.
The approach that we often take is... if you can, use what you have when you start. Once you've been with the company and your stuff is up for replacement, don't spend your own money, let the company spend that money (but save enough to buy your own so if you quit or something, you aren't scrambling... but that's just logical, not something we tell them to do.) This is kind of the best of all worlds to me in a practical sense...
No one takes a bit risk in buying new, unnecessary hardware for no reason and no one takes a risk of putting that equipment in an unknown location. Then when it is time to spend money, the company does so with a maximum of resources (e.g. strongest buying power.) It's bidirectional. Everyone does what is best and produces the maximum benefit for the whole at the least cost. In the long run, everyone wins.
And we are edging this concept towards housing. We've got the a couple employees in company housing with a third moving in in a week or so. Early days and testing the waters, but we believe in exactly that concept. We can bankroll a mortgage differently than an employee can. We take on the risk because if the employee quits another can take over the housing. We can pay cash for houses where mortgage rates are high. So the benefit to the employee is far larger than the cost to the company. It's a great use of resources.
-
wow - the whole company owns your house thing seems super scary to me. You fire me and I'm instantly homeless... I don't even necessarily have a lease to protect me for some remaining months - and even if you put a lease in place, without a provision like - if fired the employee can pay xxx rate for 6 months while finding new accommodations, after which time they must move out. Of course a provision like this is bad for the company, because they have no place to put the replacement person for 6 months...
-
But speaking to the point Scott makes about using your own equipment and where the line is...
If you work in an office - you are required to have a wardrobe the office requires - you aren't paid extra for that. Sure you can likely wear that wardrobe other places as well, but how likely is that really?
As Scott pointed out - you are responsible for providing your transportation to the office (at least in USA, and I assume in Canada and EU). In USA and Canada this almost exclusively means you need to own a car, unless you live in one of around 8 (and it's probably more like 3) cities that have unbelievably good public transportation. OK Transportation - so that means owning a car - something most companies pay zero for.again as mentioned, you're not paid for your commute time, etc.
why are these things acceptable? these are all things that cost YOU because you work for THEM.
-
Now the flip side of that - the company allows you to work from home, but considering today's work environment, we assume most home workers will be using stuff like zoom, and the wardrobe (at least the top) is still required.
transportation no longer is - employee saving
commute time - employee savingBut
the company to no longer has a building - HUGE company savings
power bill greatly reduced - company saving
ISP likely reduced - company savingI see a situation where this money spent on buildings goes to the employees so the employees can have homes that specifically cater to their work from home lives - i.e. a dedicated office space. Studies have shown the specific space is a function that allows an employee to more mentally break from work when most work is done in that office space, and life/family is done elsewhere.
Of course that said - the blend that Scott mentioned is important too - you need two hours in the middle of the day to do something with your kids - whatever it may be - you work two hours later that night to fulfill your work day.
But to that end I ask Scott - with unlimited vacation - where is the line? You mentioned that someone had a baby and took months off on vacation - so we assume this means paid... there has to be a line somewhere. The company needs to make money off the labor of the employee, otherwise why have them on staff? even more - why pay them?
And when not on vacation - what do you use to measure their output to ensure you're still getting enough value from their labor to keep them employed by you? -
@Dashrender said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
wow - the whole company owns your house thing seems super scary to me. You fire me and I'm instantly homeless... I don't even necessarily have a lease to protect me for some remaining months
That's definitely a scary proposition. And I feel similarly about not owning a computer or Internet or other basic necessities of job hunting. While obviously drastically more minor, the idea of losing a job and then instantly needing to invest in a new computer at the worst possible time and potentially needing to make an emergency austerity budget decision around it that might be mostly wasted weeks later is scary too. Not to the same degree, but the most of your basic needs that the company provides, the more trapped you feel. Company provided equipment, even just a little thing like your laptop, can sound like a good thing (like those mandatory factory breaks) on the surface, but can actually be a company attempting to make the job "stickier" than it otherwise would be.
Of course, even if the company provides you a house, car, power, Internet and computer... nothing stops you from buying all of that yourself, too. But the real benefits of it come from not having to do those things. If you buy them AND the company duplicates them, there's money wasted in the system and no matter what we feel like, at the end of the day the more an employee costs to employ the less salary bargaining power they have. Losses caused by employment decisions will invariably be paid for by the employee, not the investors.
So I agree, that feeling is one that definitely I get and find it hard to imagine people wanting to have something like that provided for that particular reason (to avoid having one of their own.)
